Just thought I’d turn these two paragraphs (from a comment by Robert in response to a question from Libby) into a post. We need to gear up for next year when we start defining rigor and defending our positions in terms of ACTFL and the Three Modes. We must make it clear to all concerned – students, parents, and administrators – that we fully align with state and national standards and that we assess academically in those terms, and that we will no longer buy into that highly deceptive term “participation grade” and act as if participation is nebulous. It is not nebulous and we will prove that next year that participation is a highly academic activity in languages with our Rigor posters and everything we have formulated here lately since February as we’ve been lining things up for next year. Robert says it all right here:
As you interact with students, check to see if they are fulfilling the requirements of Interpersonal Communication. It isn’t “participation grade”, it’s an academic grade based on demonstrated performance in the areas of culturally appropriate listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing and signing. Are they actively negotiating meaning in the target language, or are they passive or even working against the negotiation of meaning? Are they observing and monitoring the teacher (not just each other) for understanding in the target language? Are they indicating the need for clarification and adjustments? Do they attempt to participate in a genuine conversation and interaction in the target language – or do they speak in their native language? I cannot emphasize it enough: this is not the traditional “participation grade”; it is an academically rigorous assessment based on the emphasis in the Standards on the Three Modes of Communication.
Related: https://benslavic.com/blog/2011/10/26/what-the-three-modes-mean-to-me/
